Originally posted 2010-08-10 17:08:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Originally posted 2015-01-20 17:05:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Nick Daly drops me a note to the effect that one Jay-Z, gazillionaire rhyming scatologist, has been sued by a professional perspirer and leaping stage goon called Diamond Dallas Page — ach! my kingdom for a stage name! — for the former’s “Roc-A-Fella Hand Gesture,” also known as the “Diamond Cutter” hand gesture. Evidently Mr. Z uses the former, Mr. Page the latter of these nicknames for the clever manipulation of the human carpal, metacarpal and phalange bones in a distinctive diamond-shaped pattern in association with the services provided by the respective performers.
Now, Roc-a-Fella is a record company specializing in rhythmic spoken-word obscenity-laced performance art which generates (1) some light, if you will, allowing one to peer into the dimmer recesses of the heart of urban America’s cultural darkness profundity, plus (2) much heat as regards the controversial word choice typically employed by its practitioners as well as the ribald subject matter of the works, in addition to (3) immense dump trucks full of cash.
You may perhaps, in a merry mood, “Rock a fellow” — “rock” him, in this sense meaning to entertain him or absorb his attentions by use of contemporary upbeat rock and roll music or its derivaties — or as we northeastern urbanites might say, you might rock “a fella”; hence the name of the company. And it is hard not to suspect an allusion, based both on ironic association considering the countercultural nature of the works as well as with vast hordes of currency, to the name Rockefeller, the billionaire dynasty that, as is well known, controls everything, and whose name is arguably a “trademark” for immense wealth and power. (UPDATE: Jay-Z, in contrast, evidently cannot quite as readily as the Old Man could rock every fella as he might like to.) Read More…
Originally posted 2012-07-24 21:10:25. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Second Life’s ‘Aimee Weber’ (Alyssa LaRoche) recently became the first avatar with a registered trademark. The application for the registered mark was filed February 18, 2007 approved for publication July 7, and published for opposition August 14. According to ‘Weber,’ no opposition was filed, and she plans to immediately begin using the mark. In a sea of often silly metaverse firsts, this one could well signal a trend. ‘Weber’ runs a respected design studio in-world, has one of the most recognizable avatars in Second Life, and literally wrote the book on Second Life content creation. And now she gets to wear “TM” bling too.
A trademarked [sic] avatar, though novel, shouldn’t really be a surprise. McDonald’s trademarked Ronald, so there is no reason an avatar — for many users, a computer generated representation of their brand — could not also be trademarked. The rather distinct appearance of avatar ‘Aimee Weber’ is indisputably identified with the brand. And ‘Aimee Weber’ is as much a Second Life icon as she is a person you chat with at a virtual coffee shop or hire for design work; the little “TM” just makes that official.
Well, isn’t it the ® that makes it official? Why, “TM”‘s aren’t official at all! Anyway, I do appreciate the Ronald McDonald analogy. But I just want readers to be clear that while Aimee Weber is essentially an alter ego for real person Alyssa LaRoche, by Ronald there isn’t really a traveling hamburger clown. Take it from me. They wouldn’t lie about why Ronald never returned my fan mail.
It does make you wonder if everyone’s “avatar” should be registered as a trademark, too, even if they’re not so virtual-worldy. Brand equity’s not for nothing, you know! So?
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that. Some of us are inimitable, and so are our animated versions. Besides, as Alyssa LaRoche told Duranske, “It’s a general move to protect my brand. We haven’t seen any problems yet, but prior to the trademark [registration], we wouldn’t have been as well protected if somebody wanted to plaster my image all over an unrelated product.” Right. So, when we start seeing bad people passing off unrelated goods and services as those of LOC, we’ll have to consider our options.
Originally posted 2009-10-14 13:17:22. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an extensive article on about companies that “borrow” trademark equity, or purported equity, from others to build their brands, pushing the edges of fair use and perhaps then some. Marty Schwimmer has some multimedia backup (ok, well, talking heads) on this case, too.
Originally posted 2015-01-19 19:30:38. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
The Strategic Name Development blog reports that the naming rights to the New York Mets’ new baseball stadium have been sold to Citigroup. The stadium will be called “CitiField” and the privilege of that garish plug will cost Citigroup $20 million a year, or the cost of a grade-A free agent. The blog post has a great rundown on alternative “Citi” names that were considered, as well as a roundup of back-page and other learned reactions.
CitiGroup is itself a metropolis of trademark issues. The CitiGroup Center, which is right out the window of my office (over my shoulder in the picture above left), is a landmark building, i.e., a de facto trademark for the company on the New York skyline, of which it is one of the leading and tallest lights. In the picture below, taken from the east, you can see how its distinctive angles tower jauntily over the lovable rust-colored “lipstick”-shaped [former] LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION Building at 885 Third Avenue (below). But of course, buildings can’t really be trademarks, can they? If they can be, the CitiGroup Center is. Read More…
Originally posted 2010-12-24 08:00:42. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
First published on May 12, 2010.
A while ago, while obsessing about New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its obsession with turning what might have once merely been viewed as functional municipal signage or insignia into “IP ,” I made fun of the MTA’s trademark application (since approved) for IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.
So in light of last week’s Times Square bomb-thingy, who’s laughing now? Not the New York Times, in an article about the phrase’s elevation to “iconic,” including an interview with sloganeer extraordinaire Allen Kay:
“The model that I had in my head was ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships,’ ” Mr. Kay said. “I wasn’t born [yet] during World War II, but I sure knew the phrase and so did everybody else.”
“In this case,” he added, “I thought it was ironic because we want just the opposite. We want people to talk. I wanted to come up with something that would carry like that. That would be infectious.”
In 2002, the transportation agency saw a need for a security-awareness campaign to encourage customers to report suspicious activity or unattended packages, and they turned to Mr. Kay, who still had the phrase on his index card. By January 2003, the slogan was on posters and placards in subway cars, buses and trains.
It has since become a global phenomenon — the homeland security equivalent of the “Just Do It” Nike advertisement — and has appeared in public transportation systems in Oregon, Texas, Florida, Australia and Canada, among others. Locally, the phrase captured, with six simple words and one comma, the security consciousness and dread of the times, the “I â™¥ NY” of post-9/11 New York City.
The transportation authority received a trademark on the slogan from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, though unauthorized uses appear to outnumber authorized ones.
That’ll happen with plain old ways to say things in English–once called “phrases” or “sentences,” not “trademarks.”
Did you know, by the way, that you can “receive a trademark” from the PTO? I didn’t. I thought they only registered trademarks, which are otherwise earned by use that rises to the level of establishing a secondary meaning! Silly me.
So the end of that distinction, manifested of course by the common use of “trademark” as a verb, is now official, for it is no longer recognized among reporters or their diligent, triple-checking editorial phalanxes at the Newspaper of Record. This says it all about what “trademarking” has become, unfortunately; as to “journalism,” well, what do I know?
There’s more: Read More…
Originally posted 2010-03-23 15:38:08. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
“I am not trying to exploit the Academy’s trademark to offer competing goods and services,” Oscarwatch.com’s Stone told [The Hollywood Reporter].
“Rather, I am offering commentary that directly addresses the Oscars awards, a topic of great interest to the general public, thanks largely to the efforts of the Academy itself. I believe that the use of (Oscarwatch) to describe commentary about the Oscars is that of fair use.”
I believe he’s right. But this may be one of those close cases in which the mark holder still has to act. And in California, the Academy’s chances aren’t terrible, because many of their judges are.
UPDATE: More of the same, and a case that Oscar Madison would certainly appreciate!
UPDATE: From the Citizen Media Law Project:
The parties settled soon after the lawsuit was filed, and Stone changed the name of his site to “Awards Daily” and his domain name to “http://www.awardsdaily.com.”
Originally posted 2013-04-24 14:31:12. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Yes, but, PUTT-PUTT® — registered trademark for miniature golf services! Steve Baird explains:
So, I learned two things this weekend, Adam Scott is the first Australian to win the Masters, and “putt-putt” golf is a brand of miniature golf, not a generic designation for a type or category of golf game. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the brand is subject to federally-registered trademark rights, and for much more than mini-golf services, see here, here, here, here, and here.
In the Putt-Putt v. 416 Constant Friendship decision, the court granted summary judgement in favor of Putt-Putt’s federal and Maryland State trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. The court basically found it unnecessary to hold a trial in order for Putt-Putt to win. Not only did the court find there to be infringement as a matter of law, it also found Putt-Putt to be a “strong” trademark.
Why the surprise? I grew up using and hearing the term as a generic reference, not a brand. Apparently 416 Constant Friendship couldn’t muster up enough evidence to even create a genuine issue of material fact on the question of validity. Survey evidence would have been interesting, but there was no mention of this type of evidence, the registrations appeared to carry the day on validity.
I’m surprised too. And it’s a little troubling, as Steve seems to be saying, that the issue was decided on summary judgment. Just as I said about the purported trademark for “ping pong” years ago, yes, you can have a trademark registration, so technically speaking you have a trademark unless and until someone pushes back in front of a judge or a jury, or both. In the case of ping pong, which is what everyone calls table tennis, I am certain that if that happened, that registration would be history.
So as I say, like Steve, I would have thought the same thing regarding PUTT-PUTT. So what exactly did happen in that case? It’s worth looking a closely at the opinion.
For one thing, it doesn’t appear that Putt-Putt, LLC was looking for trouble here. This lawsuit was evidently not born of a cease and desist letter or some sort of enforcement campaign, but rather a trademark registration application by the defendant, 416 Constant Friendship LLC, for the mark “PUTT-PUTT FUN CENTER” for, well, miniature golf type stuff. This terms is, as you can see on the screen shot above, how Putt-Putt brands its fun centers. This brilliant move was made on March 5, 2012.
Dude. Putt-Putt didn’t only already have half a dozen PUTT-PUTT trademarks, i.e., the ones Steve links to. Putt-Putt had itself filed trademark application a month earlier for the mark … yes — PUTT-PUTT FUN CENTER — which was published for opposition the next July and added to the Register on October 9, 2012.
What were the Constant Friends thinking? (Not even going to talk about the lawyer who filed that application — not today.)
Well, let’s take a step back. Read More…
Originally posted 2011-08-16 12:34:57. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Dana Blankenhorn understands how trademark law works. Evidently, Linus Torvald’s lawyers don’t. And if Dana’s wrong and Linus is right, why, that will be an interesting new chapter in the IP rent-grab-a-thon: Open source trademarks, where quality control (the sine qua non of trademark licensing) is, to say the least, besides the point.
UPDATED: Luis Villa writes, in the comments, regarding this post, originally posted August 24, 2005:
Those articles are more than four years old now, Ron, and the policy has proven fairly robust- as far as I know there have been no Linux(tm)-related trademark lawsuits since the policy was put in place, and all major Linux vendors support the policy. (That said, licensing is now free, rather than having a nearly de minimis cost, as it has been folded into the work of the Linux Foundation.) (Read the rest..)
Originally posted 2006-10-19 13:44:39. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Sounds like a reasonable assertion, right? The same thing will happen if you stick your hand into an Acme trash compactor. It’s just bad practice. Who could be offended by that?
COMPANY SUES NBC FOR DEFAMATION
Emerson Electric is suing NBC over a scene in their new series “Heroes” that featured the company’s garbage disposal, according to an CNN Money article. The first episode showed one of the characters (whose superpowers include indestructibility) stuffing her hand down the disposal and getting it mangled, although within a few seconds her hand was fully healed.
However, Emerson, makers of the “InSinkErator,” believes the scene gratuitously showed their product as being dangerous. Their suit alleges that the program “implies an incorrect and dangerous design for a food waste disposer,” and “casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product.” They are reportedly asking the court to order NBC to “remove Emerson trademarks from future broadcasts of the show and also seek damages suffered from NBC’s acts of “unfair competition, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution.”
A spokesman for Emerson pointed out data showing that not only are you 10 times more likely to suffer harm from your dishwasher, but any injuries suffered in the event of a disposal accident would not be nearly as severe as those shown in the TV episode.
You can’t say “unbelievable” any more, because nothing is. But on the face of it, this sounds mighty flimsy — “trademark use,” anyone? — and an abuse of the Lanham Act that may be sanctionable. Decide for yourself and let me know what you think: Here’s the amended complaint.
The suit was filed in St. Louis, where Emerson is based.
UPDATE: Stupid claim settled. Of course.